Travis Pahl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in part: >However the >Republicans are the majority party and would not be playing to an >audience by voting no. They would in fact be stopping business as >usual in Washington, which I would think anyone calling themselves a >libertarian would be happy about.
I'd be happy temporarily, but unhappy after the next election when they turned out all those in favor of fiscal restraint, because they'd over-reached by trying to shut the whole thing down. A majority of voters elected them to (in part) spend less than the minority of voters would, but given a choice between spending a little more and having all the checks bounce from the federal gov't, the people would take spending a little more. Didn't the experience of the GOP-led fedgov shutdowns in the 1980s & 1990s teach you a lesson? It doesn't work, and only makes our side appear irresponsible. Radical and moderate libertarians alike would have better bargaining position if the mass media were on our side, but the mass media are overwhelmingly against us. >You seemed to have not only accepted that they >will bring us bigger government, but you are now trying to claim that >they have no choice but to do it. Pathetic. Pathetic? Experience proved it! Weren't you around when the shutdown incidents occurred? And didn't you see the results? >> No. In the 1980s & 1990s there were indeed some votes and vetos that had >> the purported effect of shutting down fedgov. What kept fedgov in business >> were emergency bills that shut down everything deemed unnecessary, >> including stopping payment to personnel. When Reagan did it by veto, the >> major media reported it as shutting down fedgov, and the Republicans were >> vilified, deluged with opprobrium by mail, etc. Eventually the spigots >> were turned on with the result that the reputation of the GOP was massively >> tarnished while they got hardly any result in reduction of the ultimate >> spending. When the GOP did it by vote when prez Clinton wanted more >> spending, AGAIN the GOP was vilified by the media and ultimately acceded >> with nothing good to show for it. >And people that do not reduce spending and try to pass themselves off >as limited government people SHOULD be villified. Read the above again. These were people doing exactly what you say they should do -- shut fedgov down by voting down a broad authoriz'n bill. In those cases it wasn't about borrowing, but about spending. They (in one case POTUS, in the other Congress) tried to bargain for reduced spending by saying, if you don't like our smaller spending package, we'll hold the entire fedgov hostage. And the reaction was, accede to the spending increase, just don't stop the checks from flowing, don't shut down the Washington Monument, etc. >I am not sure if you noticed, but the strategy The "strategy" consisting of ordinary legislative process, rather than grandstanding with shutdowns. > you claim the >republicans are using to decrease spending has resulted in the largest >spending increases in decades. I HAVE noticed. Didn't you read where I wrote it was HARD? > When the GOP 'shut down the >government' during the clinton years, in what you view as a failure >the spending was increasing much slower. But the GOP wanted actual CUTS in expenditures. Now unfortunately the climate is such that they don't seem able to even get near that. >> OTOH, the party out of power can always vote symbolically against raiing >> the debt limit, as long as they're secure in the knowledge that "yes" will >> carry. >However if the republicans all voted yes, they would be voting along >side democrats. How would the blame be placed just on the >republicans? It would not. But if they voted "no", the Republicans would get the blame, as they did in the 1980s & 1990s. In Your Sly Tribe, Robert in the Bronx _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
